2018 (10) TMI 159 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - case of applicant is that their submissions were not only not taken on record but had also not been dealt with - Held that - It is on record that four opportunities were provided to the appellant before the proceedings were concluded ex-parte. We take note that the order of the order of the Tribunal, in which it is alleged that the mistakes have occurred, did refer to a communication from the appellant about the pendency of the writ petition before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay. Undoubtedly, it was letter dated 5th February 2008 that brought the fact to the notice of the adjudicating authority but order of the Tribunal, though dating the communication as 31st January 2008, did take note of the letter referred to now by Learned Counsel - The Tribunal has also taken note of the reasons for denial of cross-examination. Also taken note of is that the notice was issued on the basis of documents recovered from their factory and these were acknowledged to have been received by the co-noticee. The reference to letter dated 31st January 2008 in paragraph 5 of the order of the Tribunal may be read as 5th February 2008. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the order dated 16th January 2018 dismissing appeals.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue at hand was the rectification of a mistake in the order dated 16th January 2018, which dismissed the appeals of M/s. Specific Alloys Pvt Ltd, M/s Bhagya Alloys Pvt Ltd, and Shri Narendra M Surana. The applicants sought rectification, claiming that their submissions were not taken on record nor dealt with. The applicants emphasized a letter dated 5th February 2008, which they believed was crucial as it highlighted that the impugned orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise had been passed without considering important communication. The Tribunal examined the letter and found it related to a writ petition filed by the applicants challenging the denial of certain documents. It was noted that the impugned order was passed after multiple opportunities were given to the appellant, and the Tribunal had considered the communication from the appellant regarding the writ petition. The Tribunal acknowledged the reasons for denial of cross-examination and the issuance of notices based on documents recovered from the factory. The Tribunal concluded that the mistake in referring to the date of the communication as 31st January 2008 instead of 5th February 2008 was not a substantial error that affected the consideration of the submissions made by the applicants during the hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal corrected the date in the order to reflect the accurate date of the communication and disposed of the rectification application with this modification. The judgment was pronounced in court on 19th September 2018.